Reframing the Knowledge Debate, with a little help from the
Greeks
Hilary C. M. Kane (Teaching Fellow)
Dept. of Computing & Information Systems
School of Information & Communication Technologies
University of Paisley
Paisley
Scotland
PA1 2BE.
kane-ci0@paisley.ac.uk
Abstract: Knowledge is a topic that covers many disciplines with writers attempting to formulate an understanding of it and its
relevance to their field. Philosophical frameworks may offer a way to gain a deeper appreciation of its relevance to management
and organisations, looking in particular at Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
Key Words: philosophy, management, knowledge, organisations
Acknowledgments to Dr. Gillian Ragsdell, (PhD Supervisor) University of Paisley, for her overall supervision and invaluable
assistance in the preparation of this paper.

2. The Current Position

Much of the current work in the area of
knowledge has emerged from the initial work of
Michael Polanyi. His seminal work "The Tacit
Dimension" (1966) has paved the way for
others
to
view
knowledge
in
a
compartmentalised way. In this work he
attempts to encapsulate what he perceives as
one of the dimensions of knowledge - namely
its tacit quality (ibid). The core element of this
is that "we can know more than we can tell"
(ibid). The implication of this statement is that
there are aspects of what we know that we
cannot clearly enunciate. Other writers,
including Nonaka and his work in knowledge
cycles, have taken up this facet of knowledge
in recent years. Nonaka (1991) has reiterated
this distinction between tacit and explicit
knowledge, saying, explicit knowledge is
formal and easy to communicate, e.g. akin to
instructions for the operation of a machine;
whereas tacit is more difficult because it is
harder to communicate, personal and difficult
to formalise (ibid). His research, based on
fieldwork in Japanese companies, has been
used as a basis for arguing that these
companies have a different perspective of
organisations. He thinks that this affects how
knowledge is created in organisations as he
says it becomes a "way of creating a particular
vision or ideal" (1991, p. 97).

A variety of writers describe knowledge in
terms of assets, intellectual capital, knowledge
work with each ascribing a different meaning to
that. So that Fahey and Prusak (1998) call
knowledge “what a knower knows”, whilst
Stewart (1997) refers to it as “one man’s
knowledge is another man’s data”.

Leonard (1998) also talks about knowledge,
this time within an organisational context. She
sees it as continually renewing, with the
physical systems in an organisation retaining
knowledge because they are encouraged by
the managerial systems created, to assist

1. Introduction
There has been a plethora of writing in the field
of knowledge management with a great deal of
the literature focused in the area of how it
might be applied in business. This paper
considers two difficulties that may emerge from
this. Firstly, there appears to be no firm
convergence about what we mean when we
talk about knowledge and, secondly, the
constructs used by writers to talk about tacit
and codified knowledge are less evident as a
way of understanding knowledge in the
philosophical writings here.
In order to move consideration of the area
forward, it seems worthwhile at this juncture to
take a fresh look at what the early thinkers in
the arena of knowledge understand this to
mean. What Socrates, Plato and Aristotle may
offer is insight into how we could view
knowledge within the current writing in this
area. This paper looks at some current writing
in this field, considers some of the literature on
knowledge in Greek philosophy and attempts
to draw some insight between these and
present problems in the current writing.

learning. These, in turn, are supported by
values. Leonard (1998) talks about learning as
the grounding for knowledge. This seems to
support the distinctions made by Nonaka when
he talks about tacit knowledge.
The traditional stance has been to progress
through information to knowledge and finally
wisdom. Davis & Botkin (1994) take a different
approach, talking about knowledge as the
application and productive use of information.
This would suggest that there is an interaction
between knowledge and information. This is
echoed, although not directly, with Von
Hippel's
(1994)
reference
to
"sticky
information", which suggests that there is a
correlation between the cost of information and
the expertise required to obtain it and the
amount of information required. It must be
acknowledged that these writers approach this
area from differing perspectives; however there
appears to be an implicit acknowledgement of
knowledge when Von Hippel talks about
'stickiness' and how this can be paralleled with
knowledge. Whilst Davis & Botkin (1994)
explicitly see knowledge in terms of information
and its use by the individual, Von Hippel
(1994) perceives degrees of information. In
essence, the greater the degree of difficulty in
accessing information, the more 'sticky' it
becomes.
It is clear that there are a number of different
views about what knowledge, both tacit and
codified, is and its relationship with information.
This presents difficulties for organisations as
they are encouraged to manage an asset
termed knowledge, whilst it is not always clear
what is meant by the terminology. To adopt a
philosophical stance may provide additional
insight to aid organisations in making
knowledge productive for them.

3. A Philosophical Approach
Epistemology is derived from the Greek word,
episteme, meaning knowledge. This branch of
philosophy is concerned with understanding
the nature, limits, structure, origin and criteria
of knowledge. The earliest contributors to this
field are the Greek philosophers. This paper
looks specifically at Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle’s writings to assess what contribution
they may offer to current perspectives.

3.1 Socrates
All that is known about Socrates’ philosophy is
derived from the writings of Plato. Socratic
theory has largely been based on the

http://www.ejkm.com

34

conception that knowledge is intertwined with a
perception of the separateness of man’s body
and soul. This has led to a quite distinctive
view of knowledge.
The role of a philosopher is centred around
this concept of separateness. In his work, The
Phaedo, Socrates attempts to address this,
conceiving a philosopher as a “lover of
wisdom”. In order to be a philosopher,
Socrates says he needs to separate the needs
of his soul from that of his body – “whoever of
us is prepared to think most fully and minutely
of each object of his inquiry, in itself, will come
closest to the knowledge of each” – 65e. He
sees the logical conclusion of this as being “knowledge is nowhere to be gained or else it
is for the dead” – 66e, because it is only at
death that the body and soul are separated.
From this understanding of the role of a
philosopher, there are two important aspects of
the Socratic conception of knowledge. Firstly,
the interrelationship between the body and
soul and knowledge, which allows Socrates to
develop a theory of Forms, and, secondly, the
belief that knowledge is not acquired but
recollected as it is innate to the individual.
The result of the interrelation between body
and soul is that, according to Socrates “..we
have got pieces of knowledge of all those
things before birth… if having got them, we did
not on each forget them, we must always be
born knowing, and must continue to know
throughout life: because this is knowing – to
possess knowledge one has got something,
and not to have lost it; or isn’t loss of
knowledge what we mean by forgetting” – 75d
(The Phaedo). This means that the choice is
that we were born with certain innate
knowledge and we were later reminded of
things that we’d already known – 76b (The
Phaedo). The implication of this is that
Socrates conceives knowledge to exist within
the individual and any efforts to ascertain
knowledge are bound up with a process of
aiding an individual to recollect what is already
within them.
This position is supported in another of
Socrates’ work, The Meno. As with the
Phaedo, this work does not deal directly with
knowledge, but contains indirect references to
knowledge. Although the central theme of the
book is concerned with trying to ascertain what
constitutes virtue and whether it can be taught,
knowledge is considered as a possible
explanation of virtue. The idea that knowledge
is innate is revisited as Socrates states that it
is impossible for a man to inquire into what he

knows or doesn’t know. He believes that man
cannot inquire into what he knows because he
knows it and he cannot inquire into that which
he does not know because he doesn’t know
into what he should inquire. To illustrate this
point he questions a slave boy in such a
manner as to suggest that the answers the boy
gives must have already existed within him and
that it was only through careful questioning
that this pre-existing knowledge was elicited.
Bound up with this idea that knowledge always
exists internally to the individual is the belief
that, according to Socrates, knowledge can be
taught, but only in so far as it is done by
prompting innate recollection. Thus, learning
is actually nothing more than recollection of
that which is already known. Consequently, a
person does not acquire knowledge through
learning; rather learning is a process of
recollecting the knowledge that already exists
in the person. This view is particularly clearly
illustrated in The Phaedo. The essence of this
is that “learning is actually nothing but
recollection” – 72e. Socrates argument for this
is that in order to be reminded of something, it
must have been previously known. If
knowledge is present in this way, it is
recollection of what has previously been
known.
In order to illuminate this point, Socrates
attempts to describe how it is that we know
what equality is. He asks what it is about the
essence of knowing that something is equal
that enables someone to say that two things
are equal. We know of a thing that is equal.
How did we get knowledge of this? If the
senses are used to examine that which is the
abstract concept of equal, then knowledge of
equal must have existed before the senses
(according to Socrates, before birth). He uses
a similar illustration looking at the concept of
good. If we know something is good and can
compare other things with that by using terms
such as “not as good/ worse/ better”, then we
must have some sense of what good is. Thus,
in order to use our senses to be able to draw
these comparisons, we must have known what
was good before we had our senses.

3.2 Plato
Plato’s influence in later philosophical thought
has been written, in part, due to the
formalisation of Socratic thought and his own
development of this. Whilst his earlier
dialogues reflect Socrates’ views, his later
works, in particular The Republic, reflect his

http://www.ejkm.com

35

own thinking in terms of the role of the
philosopher and knowledge.
Like Socrates, he was concerned with
philosophy for the good of the soul and less in
what we might conceive as its practical
application. He is similar to Socrates in
conceiving the separateness of the body and
soul and appears to view the role of the
philosopher in a similar light. In The Republic,
he introduces these thoughts by examining the
role of the philosopher, which he defines as
“someone glad to sample every subject and
eagerly sets about his lessons with an
insatiable appetite” – 475c. With this base, he
attempts to examine the distinction between
belief and knowledge. His view is that
knowledge is concerned with what he sees as
reality and the realm of the real. Belief on the
other hand is concerned more with the unreal
and incomprehension.
This separation is most closely seen in what
Plato describes as Forms. He sees a
fundamental difference between mere opinion
about the visible realm, what we sense in
terms of real objects and his theory of Forms.
Thus he is concerned with what justice might
be, or to understand what a thing really is.
What is in the arena of what we can sense is
unstable, because what we physically sense
might be wrong. Instead, with the Form, he
believed that we could know this independently
as it was not simply based on opinion, but also
because it was possible to give an account of
why the belief was true.

To try to illustrate this Plato relied heavily on
allegory. In The Republic, he cites several of
these, the most famous perhaps being that of
the Cave. This describes a situation of a
person, able to see shadows in a cave, as they
are shackled to others. One person is
subsequently unshackled, taken outside and
above ground to the light. This is intended to
exemplify both the role of the philosopher and
their role towards other people. This person
then returns to the cave to explain to those
remaining what the shadows mean.

In essence, Plato is suggesting that at the
lowest level of reality are shadows, pictures
and other images, centred in conjecture and
therefore highly unreliable. The physical realm
also has ordinary physical objects and our
perception of them provides the basis for
belief. In the realm of the intellect are the
simple Forms and systematic knowledge of

them. At the highest level are the significant
Forms, or as Plato describes them, virtues,
e.g. good (which Plato describes as the
ultimate virtue). To apprehend these is through
intuition; that we know what is good is by
reason of the intellect, instead of apprehending
this by sense. Another example of this would
be in relation to justice, i.e. to know a just act,
we must know what justice is abstractly, which
exists separately from examples of just acts.

3.3 Aristotle
Differing greatly in approach and substance to
both Plato and Socrates, Aristotle saw
knowledge clearly focused in the realm of the
world. He is also more closely aligned to
current thought and practice in the scientific
community as the logical, systematic approach
he adopted appears to be more concerned
with the practical use of knowledge. Where
Plato and Aristotle concurred was in attempting
to answer the question - what is the form that
makes things what they are? However, they
approached this question differently.
Aristotle’s thinking commences from the
standpoint that all knowledge begins with our
knowing things about objects in the physical
world. The result of this is that to discover
principles and causes for things, it was
necessary to conduct extensive observation.
He believed that the world could be
understood at a fundamental level through the
detailed observation and cataloguing of
phenomenon. Thus Aristotle was concerned
with observing as many examples as possible
and using these observations to derive
underlying principles. In this way, he thought
that reason could provide knowledge of
ultimate truths.
Using this method, he sought to categorise
knowledge. He was able to observe that
certain things can be said to be true all the
time. Thus he could say that certain objects, as
he described them, are true all the time, e.g. 1
+ 1 = 2. He was therefore able to identify
certain characteristics that these objects had,
which was that they had certainty and
precision. Other objects he considered did not
fit into this category, e.g. human behaviour. In
those circumstances he could say that the
characteristics of this were probability and
uncertainty. The importance of this is that
Aristotle did not insist that certainty was always
required.
Aristotle defines the difference as “we must be
satisfied to indicate the truth with a rough and
general sketch: when the subject and the basis

http://www.ejkm.com

36

of a discussion consist of matters which hold
good only as a general rule, but not always,
the conclusions reached must be of the same
order. For a well-schooled man is one who
searches for that degree of precision in each
kind of study which the nature of the subject at
hand admits” (Ethics I.3).
Before Aristotle could answer the question –
what is the form that makes things as they are
– he tried to deal with - what is a thing. His
answer was that the individual substance is
primary. As well as being individual it is
numerically one. Here Plato and Aristotle
diverge because Aristotle stated that if this
individual substance did not exist, then nothing
else could. Plato thought that it was the form
that gave the reality to everything else.
Once a definition has been given for what a
thing is, then it is necessary to look at what
makes it what it is. Here Aristotle thought that a
thing had an essence, given in the definition of
the thing. This definition that gives the thing
essence has a characteristic format. The
fundamental difference between Aristotle and
Plato and Socrates was on this idea of
separateness. Aristotle did not separate what
is said of a thing from the thing itself, whereas
for Plato Forms exist independently of the
thing.

4. Problems and Possible Directions
There are a number of problems with what is
being said by current writers in the area of
knowledge and knowledge management. All
appear to be concerned with the fundamental
question – what are we talking about when we
discuss knowledge? Looking at the specific
difficulties these writers have, it is possible to
pinpoint material difficulties that exist and also
consider what contribution the work of the
Greek philosophers may have to make in
connection with this.
Firstly, there appears to be confusion between
what is meant by knowledge, tacit and explicit,
and information. This confusion manifests itself
in the disparate definitions of these terms.
When Polanyi (1966) talks about tacit
knowledge, “knowing more than we can tell” he
is implicitly suggesting that there are aspects
that we as individuals cannot convey to others.
The outcome of this is that there are difficulties
inherent in the communication of tacit
knowledge, but this could equally apply to all
forms of knowledge, as there appears still to
be confusion surrounding the terminology of
knowledge itself. Nonaka (1991) has
attempted to address this, saying that to

convert something from tacit to explicit
knowledge requires a process of articulation.
However if Polanyi’s view is that there are
certain things that we cannot articulate then
Nonaka’s construct of the knowledge spiral as
a way of moving from tacit to explicit or vice
versa lacks cogency. Nonaka (ibid) also says
that a vision or ideal is sufficient to constitute
knowledge as, he says, 'it is highly personal'.
However organisations frequently attempt to
verbally explain their mission or ethos in
written form as described by Leonard (1998) in
her example of the "HP Way" (a statement by
Hewlett Packard to convey the ethos of the
company to its employees). Where the
boundary lies between what is meant by
knowledge, tacit or codified, and information
appears to be blurred with the example of
Leonard (1998), particularly if information is
considered to be data with meaning.
Linked to this confusion, there appears to be
additional uncertainty among writers in how
they define tacit and explicit knowledge. There
appears to be no adequate description that
distinguishes
explicit
knowledge
from
information. Nonaka’s view is that explicit
knowledge is easy to communicate. Davis and
Botkin (1994) similarly describe this type of
knowledge as 'formal, systematic, easily
communicable, like formulae'. Taking these
expressions in conjunction, it is evident that
they could easily express a description of
information and thus this only magnifies the
difficulties
in
the
distinction
between
information and codified knowledge. It also
suggests that there is still no unified view of
what knowledge really is and how it differs
from information. Whilst there is no agreement
on what constitutes knowledge, any attempt to
manage it becomes increasingly difficult as we
cannot manage what we cannot understand.
Looking at the philosophical position of
Socrates to Aristotle, the first main distinction
appears to be that these writers seem to have
approached the area of knowledge from a
different direction. They appear to have made
no distinction between that which is tacit or
explicit. There is no discussion of information
or data. Socrates may be more closely linked
with how Polanyi talks about knowledge in so
far as they both appear to see that knowledge
is something internal. The distinction between
them appears to be that Socrates’ approach
implies that it is possible to discover that
knowledge which is innate to the individual,
perhaps by careful examination, allowing an
individual to recollect what they already know.
This does not sit entirely comfortably with

http://www.ejkm.com

37

Polanyi, as his view would not always permit
that which is internal to the individual to be
made explicit. Aristotle represents a more
closely aligned perspective with current
writings, as he believes that general
statements might be made from observation of
the real world. In that case, he could be said to
be more closely linked to writers such as
Nonaka, who, although they make a distinction
between tacit and codified knowledge, do allow
for the possibility that one can be transformed
into the other. However Aristotle differs in that
he perceives such things as human behaviour
as not being capable of certainty in terms of
knowledge. This would suggest that there is a
point at which observation of real world
phenomena cannot allow a complete
deduction to a theory particularly in the area of
human behaviour.
With the standpoint of the Greek philosophers
that there appears to be no distinction made
about that which is tacit, codified or
information, this might be both positive and
negative. Whilst they do not distinguish these
terms, they offer a different interpretation of
what knowledge is. Importantly, they all appear
to acknowledge that knowledge resides within
the human. However, Socrates implies that
effort should be directed to ways of eliciting
what is internal and Aristotle suggests that
sufficient observation offers a degree of
certainty, albeit weak. In addition, by not
defining knowledge in terms of what exists
inside and outside the individual they are not
faced with the difficulties that appear to be
inherent in current writings where these
boundaries are blurred.
Finally, in relation to tacit knowledge there are
inherent difficulties in translating what we
understand by knowledge into something
meaningful for others. Nonaka talks about tacit
knowledge as something that is hard to explain
or communicate and Polanyi actually believes
that there are things that we simply cannot
communicate. The implication of these views is
that it raises the issue of what place learning
and experience have in the creation and
transfer of knowledge and how, if at all,
knowledge can be communicated. Within an
organisational context, the work of Schein
raises interesting issues for consideration in
the field of knowledge. Schein’s (1984) work
relates to organisational culture but may have
resonance for this area. Schein (1984) talks
about organisational culture having levels, with
values being the second level as they underpin
the outward symbols of a culture. In the same
way, instead of continuing the debate around

what constitutes knowledge, it may be
appropriate to consider what factors such as
an individual's own experience, learning and
values have in transforming information into
knowledge or being the essence of what
constitutes knowledge. Leonard (1998) talks of
organisations needing to continually innovate,
destroying what has gone before and sees
values and norms as the personality of an
organisation. There seems every possibility
that the same could be applicable at an
individual level.
Although Socrates does not use the word tacit
in his writings, both Plato and Socrates appear
to be concerned with what is innate to the
individual. It would appear that their
conception, that by careful examination of the
individual a person can recollect that which
they already know, raises interesting issues
touched on by Leonard and Schein and the
role of values, culture and experience as
having relevance for writers in the area of
knowledge. Aristotle, despite adopting what
would be considered a more traditional
scientific approach, still highlights uncertainty
in human behaviour, which would have
implications for dealing with what writers
describe as tacit knowledge. The key feature
of all the writers is that they do not appear to
make the same, possibly artificial, distinction
between that which is tacit and that which is
codified. Instead of adopting this construct they
are much more concerned with aligning
knowledge to the individual, describing its
properties, its essence. In this regard, it is
perhaps an erroneous approach to try to
compartmentalise knowledge, but instead it
would be more beneficial for organisations to
see the individual as the knowledge base and
use that as the starting point with knowledge.
Using the approach adopted by Socrates, it is
possible to acknowledge that efforts to
manage knowledge are then more clearly
directed at an individual level, as he would
consider that knowledge resides in the
individual rather than in terms of managing
information as seems to be the current stance.

Thus, it is evident that people writing in the
area
of
knowledge
and
knowledge
management appear to have blurred the
boundaries between knowledge, both tacit and
explicit, and information. The potential impact
of this is that for people to manage knowledge,
they should be clear about its boundaries and
its interaction with information and data. The
evidence, particularly from the writers
considered in this paper, does not appear to
support that position. The outstanding feature